"I believe LifeVantage’s current science program to encourage or promote issue-specific studies is a sound strategy indeed. Since Big Pharma (through its proxy, the FDA) doesn’t allow supplements to make any disease claims, I think it’s important for the scientific literature to make those claims for us. Most people can then make the connection and understand how Protandim can be a positive part of their health regime."

It is worth noting a three things here:

Paul Myhill admits that LifeVantage is "encouraging" the studies. This seems to mean that the scientific community is not independently interested in studying Protandim. This explains why the research is all tied back to LifeVantage.

The other interesting thing here is that he seems to admit this effort isn't about studying Protandim, but it is about putting scientific literature out there to market towards the average person.

Finally Paul Myhill defames the pharmaceutical industry with an unfounded claim that the government organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) works as a proxy for their interests.

I’ve been involved in the health and fitness industry for over 22 years, working both in the supplement industry and as a leader for several large national health clubs. I also have a degree in Food Science and Dietetics. As such, I’ve been approached to sell virtually every network marketing supplement, and always declined after researching the product and finding a dearth of science to support its efficacy.

I am proud to say I am a distributor for Lifevantage Corp, given that the company does have such a strong focus of proving the effectiveness of the product through valid scientific research, In the world of supplements, whether they be network modeled or retail, this approach is almost singularly unique. I fail to see why using peer-reviewed research to market this product is being viewed negatively; I would think that their willingness to subject Protandim to scientific scrutiny should be the very model that we expect from other supplement manufacturers.

Can you elucidate your position as to why this approach is something that is viewed derisively?

On it’s own, it would seem to be a positive thing to do research on your product and have it published. However, Paul Myhill isn’t saying that they are researching the product because they believe it is valuable. He’s wording his comments saying that they are “encouraging” the research. Many LifeVantage distributors are mislead to believe that universities and their staff are actually interested in Protandim, when it would appear that they are more interested in the “encouragement.” I’m worried about the lack of disclosure around that “encouragement.” Additionally the quote that I mentioned libelously alleges that that the FDA is persuaded by pharmaceutical companies to not allow them to make medical claims.

Furthermore, it is often viewed that peer-reviewed studies are 100% valid research. This is simply not true. Peers review to make sure that the conclusions make sense, data could be fudged anywhere along the way. There are numerous examples of such peer-reviewed studies published (autism and vaccines was a recent one) that later turned out to be invalid. Furthermore, when you look at the studies three things pop out:

“I have an unwavering belief that network marketing is one of the most powerful marketing concept on the planet and one of the few ways that any average Joe can go from zero to hero on pure piss and vinegar and help a lot of people along the way.”

Also, check out his schpiel. With a bit of Googling you’ll see lots of websites with the same “9 credit hours left to graduation” quote, so obviously he’s quite proud of it. What he’s doing is classic seo baiting – writing all about the MLM marketing companies as if he’s nailing scams, and then somehow each MLM company ends up looking golden. Make money while heading off Google searchers who are looking for scam reports. Smart.

[…] Conclusion: This seems to be sound research and backs up what Protandim Inventor Paul Myhill said about encouraging research] This entry was posted in LiveVantage Lies, Protandim Studies. Bookmark the permalink. ← […]

I have been following your articles with interest. I am an Interventional Cardiovascular physician with a background in nutrition. Just to clarify a few points you have expressed, casting doubts on the product. Regarding research, and being a principal investigator in a many trial, most studies are carried and promoted by the company who wants to market the product and by the inventor. The goverment and other non-profit foundation do not have the capacity to, by themselve, sponsor research in many products. For instance, look at vaccines and immunization, despite proven to save lives and showing mass benefits, it is not the goverment that takes the leads, it is private companies that do the research and provide most of the money to proceed with it. It is those same companies that then sell those vaccines to the goverment for a profit. As an inventor myself of a device, since I am the one believing in my product, I am the one designing the trials and initial studies to prove its benefit, so I can then partner with private companies to do further research and developed my product. So the fact that Dr Maccord participates in his trials, it is very commom in the scientific world for the author to participate in his research. In science what proves the validity of research is the ability to duplicate the results by other authors, which no one has disproved with protandim.
Yes, protandim is made of natural products, so most of other therapeutic drugs. Wether protandim is made of natural products doesn’t mean it is not benefitial, maybe you are not using the proper mixed or concentration of them.
I believe in the product, it is very promising, I agree large blinded nonrandomized trials are needed, but to this date the early trials with this natural product are very promising. In this multibillion dollar bussiness for antioxidants, protandim is distinguishing itself as a very promising product.
Another good thing about it is that is has been around for close to 10 years and no side effects reported, showing a good safety track record.
I like the product, I take it, give it to my families, and I encourage my patients to take it.
I liked the product so much that I bouthg stocks in the company, they are at a very bargain price. I also disclose to my patients that I own stocks in the product, and that it is not approved by the ACC and the AHA as product for heart conditions, yet.
So far I like what I see, and I hope that Protandim continues to show good benefits in future trials, the cardiology field is in need to continue exploring and try to find a good antioxidants or antioxidant or enhancer to fight heart disease.
But of course, you know all this already.

There’s a huge difference between McCord participating in the studies for Protandim and say someone from Pfizer participating in one for Viagra. The difference is that Viagra, or any other medicine, has undergone the large-scale clinical trials as required by the FDA for making any medicinal claims. Protandim is an amalgamation of things that many people can find on their spice rack that hasn’t undergone any significant human trials. If I had the money, I could create a cinnamon/garlic/vitamin C combination and create some studies that seem impressive for that. I could show how it would lower TBARs scores as well since it is well known and documented that vitamin C has this effect. Maybe then people would spend millions on my product?

There are actually very few drugs that are made up entirely of natural products that are sold over the counter. If so, please specify the formula for making Viagra, Prozac, diphenhydramine, doxycycline, etc. Go ahead and pick a few common medicines and tell us how we can go to Amazon.com and make our own from products there. I’ve seen how this can be done with Protandim.

You said, “In science what proves the validity of research is the ability to duplicate the results by other authors, which no one has disproved with protandim.”

Actually, it hasn’t been shown that these authors have been able to duplicate the results in any of the studies. It also hasn’t been shown whether the studies have any relevance to humans. Some of them are so ridiculous that they don’t involve the product (instead an alcohol extract), inject the product (rather than taken the product as the company intends), into a mouse (not a human as the company intends), in a quantity equavalent to a human taking a whole bottle of the product. The studies are also published in journals with low impact factors and in a few cases journals where McCord sits on the board calling into question the ethics of the publication.

The product has been around 6 years and the company has not made any attempt to do any large scale clinical blinded trials. The time to do these trials is before the product is launched. It isn’t to wait 6 years and still not do it.

The safety record is not a surprise. It is the efficiency that we need to be worried about. Since these are common ingredients that are relatively well known and safe, this isn’t a selling point. You wouldn’t buy my cinnamon/garlic/vitamin C antioxidant based it being safe, but I can very much guarantee you it would be.

JJJ said: “Regarding research, and being a principal investigator in a many trial, most studies are carried and promoted by the company who wants to market the product and by the inventor.”

I realize that many clinical MDs (and I’ll just assume that you are who you say are) don’t understand research very well, but allow me to break the issue down for you clearly. The fact that companies may often be the sole sponsors of research on their own products does not negate the fact that sponsorship and financial interest are universally and unequivocally regarded as potential biasing factors. If you had ever seen a thorough meta-analysis (for instance a Cochrane Review), you would be familiar with funnel plots etc. to analyze the relationship between financial interest (sponsorship) and positive outcomes. A nearly universal finding is that company-funded studies tend to show more favorable results for their respective products as compared with independently-funded studies.

It would be easier to forgive you for not knowing this if you hadn’t used your position of authority in such a poorly conceived attempt to whitewash an important issue.

JJJ said: “So the fact that Dr Maccord participates in his trials, it is very common in the scientific world for the author to participate in his research.”

First of all, you should have said the “corporate world”, not the “scientific world”, as the two are very different and the former is what’s most applicable here. Secondly, it’s not unheard of by any means, but when it does happen (i.e. a company executive with a multimillion dollar conflict of interest is a co-investigator/author), the research is often regarded with skepticism, which is simply what we’re expressing here at McCord’s research. Also, when Pharma companies conduct human research, they use strict controls (double-blinding, randomization, placebos) and large subject cohorts to minimize the potential for bias (because if they failed to, the results would be unreliable). These features were totally lacking in McCord’s research. And we have seen reliable evidence that the subjects for the study (who were very few in number) were cherry picked and, amazingly, 2 LFVN investors were among them. We’ve also discussed many other issues about LFVN’s lone clinical trial that rendered it all but worthless.

JJJ said: “In science what proves the validity of research is the ability to duplicate the results by other authors, which no one has disproved with protandim.”

You contradicted yourself in that simple but logically-challenged statement. It’s quite true that validity is proven through replication. The Protandim results haven’t been replicated; hence, for that reason alone, you can’t say that the results are valid. It doesn’t matter that the results and conclusions haven’t been disproven – that is NOT how science works. You can’t simply invent a hypothesis and claim that it’s true simply because no one has proven that it isn’t. In fact, a cardinal rule of experimentation is that you can’t prove a negative; you can only disprove a positive (i.e., a hypothesis only has to fail once to be invalid). This is veeeery basic stuff doc.

JJJ said: “Yes, protandim is made of natural products, so most of other therapeutic drugs.”

Meaning what exactly? Sounds like you’re utterly lost in your argument now. Protandim is made of cheap kitchen spices. Most other (but not all) therapeutic drugs are synthetic. Lots of poisons are “all natural” and so are lots of things that are utterly useless. Evoking the “natural” argument is weeeeeak!

JJJ said: “I believe in the product, it is very promising, I agree large blinded nonrandomized trials are needed, but to this date the early trials with this natural product are very promising.”

You belief is misplaced and an obvious byproduct of your ignorance. IMO, large trials are not needed; they would be an utter waste of time and money because there are about 3 dozen facts indicating that the people behind this whole enterprise are liars and scammers. On that basis alone, I have no reason to believe that Protandim is promising or that an additional trial is warranted. Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so because LFVN has not announced any such trials, nor would any independent investigator in their right mind conduct one.

JJJ said: “Another good thing about it is that is has been around for close to 10 years and no side effects reported, showing a good safety track record.”

Apparently, it’s time to take off the kid gloves and put on my boxing mitts. First of all, no safety data have ever been published. It’s therefore impossible to properly assess the safety of the product. You could have gotten away with simply saying that you are not aware of any safety issues (that would just be evidence of your laziness). But the fact is that LFVN’s Protadnim FAQs list a number of side effects such as allergic responses, gastrointestinal disturbances (stomach ache, diarrhea, vomiting), headache, and rash of the hands and feet. So instead of simply correcting you, I’m duty bound instead to call you an irresponsible lying hack who’s doing a disservice to the medical profession.

JJJ said: “I like the product, I take it, give it to my families, and I encourage my patients to take it. I liked the product so much that I bouthg stocks in the company, they are at a very bargain price. I also disclose to my patients that I own stocks in the product, and that it is not approved by the ACC and the AHA as product for heart conditions, yet.”

You really are a disgrace to your profession. God help anyone who might have the misfortune of being your patient. Clearly, you have a financial interest in the product both as a seller and a stockholder. And because of your misleading use of the word “yet”, it’s clear that you are implying to patents that Protandim is en route to being approved for heart disease. Your irresponsibility, lack of professional ethics, and disregard for the law truly boggles my mind.

Fortunately, this conversation will only be one Google search away for anyone curious about your capabilities.

You are not qualified to do anything but spend countless hours doing your “blog research” and then call it notable…. think not!!

You keep exposing yourself for the novice you are. Protandim is a Nrf2 activator. Nrf2 is one of the key proteins in the body and regulates approx 500 of the 25,000 genes in the body. The 500 genes Protandim regulates are termed by scientist… that would not be you on any stretch…as Survival Genes. There are three categories of Survival Genes: 1- Antioxidant 2- Anti-Inflammatory
3- Anti-fibrotic. Real science…. real studies have confirmed this!

I will take 8 actual scientific peer-review studies and over 25 major universities studying the product itself over some “bitter boy” at his computer. Let the scientists do what they are doing and then let’s see what the real results are…

Meanwhile… you are just embarrassing yourself by being so underqualified to criticize. For every one of you, I can safely guess there are 100s of people who are happier and healthier because of Protandim. Period.

You would be mistaken about the 100s of people who are happier and healthier because of Protandim. In fact, they are poorer and less healthy because they are relying on a “magic pill” to be the easy solution for their health problems – a pill that is shown to be no more effective than a sugar pill for any kind of malady.

Howdy there Antonio. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing you’re actually Javier using a disguise because you’re too embarrassed to use your real name after the awful drubbing inflicted upon you in my last post.

Couldn’t help but notice that you addressed none of what I said and instead skipped over it to talk about how impressed you were about “nrf2″, “studies” and “universities” — a tacit admission that you have no real ammunition.

I am new to this blog and have been an avid
user of supplements and the one thing that
struck me was the amount of time it takes for
natural supplements to get results if any. I
think this blog is a scam. I do not believe in
tests or abstacts you can say just about anything you want on any side you choose. Paint
any picture you want. I have not seen litigation involving this product and a good
lawyer would be looking for a way to make money
on this labeling alone. One word, oh two blood
test. It does not matter who wrote this these
articles as long as there documented results.
I am sure the medical community would like less patients. I feel the results and my body
never lies because I listen to it and not talk
to it all the time. Good luck trying to stop
this wave and PS testimony really matters. Last thing, would a Caridolgist risk his mercedes to sell a natural supplement Rom.
I invite all experts to explain where is the
content and what is your agenda on this blog?

I have, over the past few months, noticed a dramatic change in two of my friends; one of which had some very serious health issues.

The change in one of my friends was so dramatic, that I said to her (just tonight at a party we both attended), “You must be sleeping in a time machine.”
She laughed and asked, “What do you mean?”
“Well,” I said, “every time I see you, you look younger.” Not to mention the fact that she’d lost some 40 lbs. during this time. I asked her what diet she was on. She said she was just eating properly. I said, “you’ve always eaten properly. What are you really doing?”
She told me she was taking a product called Protandim. Huh.

So, she said she was going to have a little meeting where she was going to be telling some other folks about this product. I told her I’d like to come hear it.
Before attending, though, I thought I’d do a little research on the product and hit upon this site, as well as some others.
I don’t take this product. I don’t sell this product. But I have seen these changes in my two friends, and the product interests me.

From what I’ve read here, your biggest complaint seems to be that Paul Myhill, who you say REALLY created Protandim, has no medical background. But doctors don’t have a corner on the market of the ability to create helpful things (the parents in Lorenzo’s Oil, for instance).

Your other complaint seems to be that the product is made from natural ingredients that anyone could get anywhere, create their own, and, using network marketing, make a mint. Well, putting the natural ingredients together in the right combination and ratios seems to be what this Myhill has done; just like the Odones did. As for the network marketing, well, I guess that’s what my friend did when she became a ‘billboard’ of obvious change to me.
Well, you have not dissuaded me from going to my friend’s meeting, yet; nevertheless I’ll listen carefully to how they present their science.

What you say is my biggest complaint is not even close. There are a bunch that are tied at the top. It is important to note that tens of millions of health care people weren’t able to find what one person with no experience could find. It’s the equivalent of an Amish person inventing the iPhone 7. However, not only that, but the company was REQUIRED to come up an invention after their deal for CMX-1152 died.

I hope you are smart enough to know that natural ingredients in the right ratios are no different than making a cake or pie. They are natural ingredients in specific ratios, but no one attributes healing to apple pie or chocolate cake.

Laurie said: “‘Well,’ I said, ‘every time I see you, you look younger.’ Not to mention the fact that she’d lost some 40 lbs. during this time. I asked her what diet she was on. She said she was just eating properly. I said, ‘you’ve always eaten properly. What are you really doing?’”

Your first instinct was the right one. Losing 40 pounds will generally make someone look younger. And if she were “eating properly” she wouldn’t have 40 extra pounds to lose. The outcome can be attributed solely to the weight loss, which of course has nothing to do with Protandim because it doesn’t make one lose weight.

[…] research. However, in the case of an MLM creating research for marketing purposes (such as when LifeVantage admits science is for marketing) other scientists don’t retest the results. The products haven’t prove themselves to […]

An acquaintance told me tonight about a “new” business he was in, and sent a link to a news report. Being the natural sceptic I am, I stumbled across this website. I started reading many of the comments here, and REALLY like how Vogel is able to dissect someone’s email, and clarify their mistaken logic.
You have a gift, my friend.

Paul Myhill is an entrepreneur who makes a ton of money through exploitation of vulnerable people. Through his past work with Chinese Children Adoption International and now with World Orphans and Protandim, the guy will try to make easy money off vulnerable people and suckers. He is pathetic and so are his claims.

[…] One thing that I like about Dr. Hall is that she boils it down to a level that the average person can understand. You don't need to understand the study. She explained it in enough detail that you can see that it doesn't make sense. The conclusion supports what this website, and Protandim inventor Paul Myhill has claimed long ago: Paul Myhill, Inventor of Protandim, Admits Protandim's Science is for Marketing. […]

It is against the law to advertise a supplement as a cure all for all the ailments under the sun. If anything a supplement can be used to enhance a prescribed medication, but in no way should a person get off his/or her meds, and take a supplement in it’s place.

Supplements that show that they work for conditions such as the ones outlined on the FDA’s website can make claims. If Protandim or any other supplement is helpful, LifeVantage has the opportunity to do the studies and supply the proof. They haven’t.

I have worked in the medical field for about 15 years doing PR work and fundraising for reputable medical institutions. There are many issues involved in this contraversy. I am primarily concerned about the facts about Protandim derived from credible research studies. It seems it would be worth investigating the supplement further, and I would not want to rule out the possibility of it’s having positive results. It would be too bad if potential medical advancements were thwarted due to insufficient evidence, lack of funding, and apparent disfunction amongst innovators connected with the company. I would encourage those who decide to use the product to check with their pharmacist, if they are on medications, to make sure the supplement does not cause harmful interactions.

On what basis would you say that it seems like investing Protandim further? Only people associated with LifeVantage have taken this view and no outside scientists. LifeVantage could do real clinical trials instead of convoluted ones (like the most recent failure of Protandim that was covered by this doctor: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/brief-update-protandim/), but they choose not to.

Credible medical advancements are not thwarted due to insufficient evidence. If it is credible, people, especially LifeVantage in this case because they have a huge financial interest, will get the evidence necessary through the clinical trials. Lack of funding is never an issue for something that is truly credible, because they can bring the credible research to thousands of third parties and get funding from them through a line of credit, stock sale, etc.

I understand and respect your viewpoint. When I said, “I am primarily concerned about the facts about Protandim derived from credible research studies,” I meant this in a hypothetical sense in that it would be interesting to see the results of proper and accurate studies conducted over time. I did not mean that LifeVantage had conducted proper studies. I’m just saying it is too bad that the project lost credibility before accurately proving or disproving the effectiveness of Protandim.

As with any product, you’d want to see proof of it working before it is sold to consumers. When it comes to health products, it is assumed to be ineffective until proven otherwise. Otherwise, we can say that it is too bad that my product involving chili powder, garlic powder, and cinnamon… which I just invented… lost credibility before it was accurately proven or disproven in effectiveness.

I find the only fraud here is this blog, if you want any credibility attach your real name and who you work for. Take it for 30 days, submit labs for lipid oxidation test, before and after results. If you are correct you have a valid argument, but you won’t. Typical, big pharma, like you that exploit people and really prey on the sick. Its amazing how so many have the placebo effect, oh wait a minute that study was peer reviewed too. HaHaHa your a joke

Lipid oxidation tests wouldn’t prove any real benefit (i.e. live longer, help with any disease, jump higher, etc.) to the body. A sample size of one person, me, isn’t helpful in making a case for Protandim. They need to put together large scale tests. Criticize big pharma all you want, but at least they do clinical tests of their products on tens of thousands of people… and people still complain it isn’t tested well enough.

The placebo effect effects 30% of people (source : American Cancer Society). So if everyone in America tried an inert pill, there would be an “amazing” 100 million people claiming it worked… so it isn’t amazing at all.

Come on guys, you act like you have an ax to grind. You completely lack objectivity. I don’t sell this stuff nor do I even take it. I am merely researching it. After reading your comments it makes me wonder. Who peed in your cheerios.

Your not making your points very well, You are saying the same thing over and over again. You are giving too much credit to the placebo affect. You are right it can be significant but not nearly as powerful as you are indicating. And to take that one step further, less effective in altering biochemical data. I know a couple of people who have experienced a significant change in their blood work since taking this product. They have both experienced a significant drop in their lipid panel after using this product. Now I understand that there may be other variable involved here but it is worth looking into. I am not saying I am sold on this product but your screaming placebo is a little too much. I don’t believe this is some miracle pill but the effects are worth further investigation.

Everyone should have an ax to grind with companies that defrauds the public. The better question is why don’t you have an ax to grind?

If you reading the sames points made over and over again in the comments, its because distributors show up without understanding them the first time. When the product was sold at GNC, this problem was avoided.

As for placebo effect, please see all the contributing factors in this product and dozens of other MLM products that distributors make the claims of similar effects: No, Your MLM Health Product Doesn’t “Work.” Here’s a hint, it isn’t Protandim that creates the effects, but MLM distribution system and the psychological phenomena surrounding it.

Bottom line is that LifeVantage would e shut down If, indeed it was a scam. So quit wasting you’re time trying to prove people other wise. Go to Lifevantage.com and look at the website and make an honest decision and don’t listen to these people who get paid to write and blog on this topic of Lifevantage and Protandim being a scam. They get paid for all the visitors that visit this site and others.

I don’t pay anyone to blog here. The amount of money that I make here does little more than cover server costs. Why would you go to Lifevantage.com when they’ve shown to scam people? They are paid millions more than I am. Your logic is busted.

If the product was a scam, why is there so much information on pubmed.gov and why are there so many testimonials from people that have documented proof that the product has worked for them? Watch the video of the 92 year old man with Chronic Heart Failure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Szyc6HPu0

This is only one of many success stories. It’s obvious you have an agenda to disprove the product for reasons unknown, but it’s people like you that destroy the opportunity for many people to possibly find something they can take and live a healthier life.

All MLM health products have a ton of testimonials. You can read more why there are so many here and here. The placebo effect has been well-documented to work on 30% of people. If you get 100 million people to try the placebo that is known not to work, roughly 30 million will give a testimonial that it worked. 30 million testimonials is lot, isn’t it?

Yes, the agenda is to help people think smarter about their health and not buy into companies illegal marketing. There’s no real opportunity here and the more time and money that you waste on the marketing here, the more it takes away from proven things that help your health… diet and exercise.

My cousin has been brainwashed by
This company its indian spice snakesnake
Oil and the lure of bags of money
Pouring in from a future downline. He
Tried to get me into it. I looked at the
Pubmed articles and could only wonalcohalic
How on earth mice cells with protandim
Leaked over them could ever be compared
To humans ingesting a compact pill
That for all we know doesnt even dissolve
In our stomachs. I would rather take
The placebo in the human trial on alcoholic
Lungs. At any rate, the primetime show
Was clearly an infomercial. Everything
They do just screems gimmic and fraud.
I saw joe mccord explaining how protandim
Inters into a cell, and he made it appear
That protandim, a mix of herbs has its
Own receptors to take it in one piece like
A molecule. Also i see that he failed first semester statistics for making statically
Meaningful correlations between data.

The lesson to learn about this whole scam
And its success is that we need laws to
Make this conduct illegal. Telling people
Your research is peer reviewed, when it is merely published in places were frauds go to pay to have their papers published so that it will wind up in a national data base and the scammers can sell by telling people to
Go look at their peer reviewed studies at the national institute of health web page. Its just a creepy joke. Now all the early people, who started the scam have cashed out, but
You still have an army of distributors out
Their telling you to get in early…get in and in five years youll make $40K a month as
A level 9 distributor.